Have you stopped beating your wife yet? It is up to you to prove that I am posting propaganda, versus failing that, resorting to the Catholic Answers favorite recourse of dismissing all those who expose its sophistry as being anti-Catholic bigots.
Then support your false charge of sophistry with facts, instead of using sophistry. Catholic Answers is a good resource for reliable information on given topics. You don't like it when we use it because it destroys anti-Catholic lies. A good topic for discussion why lies have to be invented in the first place.
All of which go together, as subsequent responses show, and are collectively contrary to PTCBIH.
What kind of copy and paste apologetic is that? Do you really think the record of spiritual declension and accretion of traditions of men is the standard for what the NT church believed, versus what is manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive record of it?
That is not what I said, and it is not what my signature says. If it were not for Tradition, you would have no scripture.
In other words, your attack one a a false man made tradition is a false man made tradition.
Tradition is defined in my signature. Another definition is the authentic history of belief and practice. You have little authentic history of belief, practice or doctrines beyond the 16th century, and what is authentic your spiritual ancestors borrowed wholesale from the Catholic Church. If the so called reformers did not invent SS, we wouldn't have to refute it. Refutations of man made traditions is not a tradition. Refutations of Arianism, Nestorianism, Apollinarianism or any of the legions of sola scripturist heretics is not a tradition either.
You mean over 2,000 words that fail to provide even one example of any believers praying to anyone else in heaven but God, or that they were addressed, or any instruction to do so, somehow proves prayer to created beings in Heaven is not entirely absent from Scripture?
I gave several examples. You just ignored them all.
Instead such utter failure to provide what Catholics could only wish was recorded despite over 200 prayers in Scripture is itself an argument against it being what the NT church believed and practiced.
Define "NT church". What year the NT end? After John wrote Revelation in 95 AD, after the canon of Scripture was settled in 397 AD, or somewhere in between? Or did it end at all? The Divinity or Godhood of Christ was only finalized in 325 at the Council of Nicaea, and the full doctrine of the Trinity in 381 at the Council of Constantinople. The dogma of the Two Natures of Christ (God and Man) was proclaimed in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon. These decisions of General Councils of the Church (accepted by all branches of Christianity)
were in response to challenging heresies. Why should Protestants accept these authoritative verdicts, but reject similar proclamations on the Communion of Saints, Church government, the Eucharist, Mary, Purgatory, etc.? You have no grounds except to cherry pick the councils based on a man made unbiblical premise of sola scriptura.
Again, define "early church".
Protestants build their entire rule of faith and theology upon
sola Scriptura (the notion that the only infallible authority is Scripture, and in practice, that every doctrine needs explicit biblical proof to be believed at all),
yet this idea is never found in Scripture anywhere (it was basically invented by Luther out of thin air, under pressure in a debate). So why the irrational double standard? You can base that false tradition of men on nothing whatever in Scripture, yet demand all kinds of explicit biblical proofs for every Catholic distinctive, (even though prayers to saints is rooted in Judaism) as if that is necessary, when there is plenty about it in Scripture, just not enough to
your arbitrary taste. The rich man prayed to Abraham that you reject as prayer, Jesus prayed to Lazarus, that you reject as prayer, Peter prayed to Tabitha, that you reject as prayer, and so forth. Your definition of "pray" is overly modernized. And what
is there many Protestants don't or can''t see, under the principle of
"no man is so blind as he who will not see."
What Catholics must resort to is erroneous extrapolation after extrapolation, insisting that a common Catholic practice must be what believers engaged in, despite unable to produce any examples of PTCMIH amidst over 200 prayers to Heaven.
Although the weight of Scriptural warrant is not the basis for the veracity of Catholic doctrine, and what "The Catholic Church" says is to be the supreme law,
What you seem to be saying throughout this post is the saints and angels are deaf, dumb and blind to the affairs of the earth, therefore have no concern for us and do not offer to God our prayers. Some heavenly reward that is.
I never said it was mandatory, though assent to the doctrine of it is, but that what "The Catholic Church" says is to be the supreme law, and thus calling me "vicious" while engaging in miscontruance of what I said means your charge falls upon your own head.
A requirement for belief is not the same as a supreme law, which implies enforcement, which is silly. You have requirements too. Does that make your beliefs supreme laws?
Really, you see "synagogue of the Jews" who and conclude these must be Greek Pharisees who and "searched the scriptures daily whether those things were so. Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few. (Acts 17:11,12) Regardless, this postulation does not help your purpose:
But it does. The Bereans used the Greek canon to "search" because they were Greek Pharisees. Protestants use a Hebrew canon dictated to them by Jews who rejected Christ and the message of the NT. That's your authority, not mine.
Which is so much propaganda, as it presumes that the LXX of the 1st century contained the Deuteros, which is not evidenced by any mss of that era, and which scholarly opinion
opposes nor does Paul ever refer to references to any of the Deuteros as Scripture, or "it is written," while even Catholic sources admit that the Jewish canon (the Palestinian canon held by the Pharisees) did not contain the Deuteros.
Of course they did not contain the Deuteros. The school of Jamnia of 95 AD rejected them to despite the Christians who were using them as scripture. Furthermore, these "infallible" determinants of the canon rejected everything that was Greek, including all of the NT.
As the Catholic Encyclopedia affirms, “the protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants.” “...the Hebrew Bible, which became the Old Testament of Protestantism.” ( The Catholic Encyclopedia>Canon of the Old Testament; htttp://
www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)
It's both/and, not either/or.
And which was a freedom Catholics such as Jerome had for most of Rome's history.
We have the freedom to disagree, we do not have the freedom to rebel. Show me where Jerome or any Church Father rebelled against the Magisterium.
Are you serious? The Scriptural record of the NT church shows what parts of Jewish tradition were followed, and actually warns against giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men (Titus 1:14) which is contrary to what Paul etc. taught, which never examples or teaches PTCBIH.
But only God is shown able to hear all prayer and is the only one appealed to as able to do so, and "only knowest the hearts of all the children of men," (1 Kings 8:39; 2 Chronicles 6:30; Acts 1:24) and from what I recall any two-way communication btwn created beings required both to somehow be visibly in the same place, versus believers praying "hear Thou from Heaven" 2 Chronicles 6:21,23,25,27,30,33,35,39).
Again, that has nothing to do with Sacred Tradition. "knowing hearts" has nothing to do with the Communion of Saints. Angels rejoice when a sinner repents, does that mean they have to know their hearts? "only God knows hearts". No kidding. It's not same as intercession. The argument fails.
That is a mere argument by mere assertion in lieu of any substantiation against the manifest boundary btwn the two realms.
Jesus has only one Body—not one on earth and another one in heaven (Eph 4:4, Col 3:15). All Christians, including those in heaven, are members of that one body. The "manifest boundary" is a false man made Protestant tradition.
Because of Christ’s victory over death, a victory in which all Christians share (see 1 Cor 15:25-26, 54-56; 2 Cor 2:14; 2 Tim 1:10), natural death cannot separate Christians from Christ or from each other. That is why Paul exulted, "What will separate us from the love of Christ? . . . I am convinced that neither death, nor life . . . will be able to separate us from the love of God in Jesus Christ our Lord" (Rom 8:35-39). Since death has no power to sever the bond of Christian unity, the relationship between Christians on earth and those in heaven remains intact. Paul chides Christians who think they don’t need other Christians: 1 Cor 12:18-20, 24-26
rather than this offering of prayers being some continuous postal service, they are offered in memorial before the judgments of the last days (Rev. 5:8 and 8:3,4; f. Lv. 2:2,15,16; 6:15; 24:7; Num. 5:15)
What? The answers were right in front of you, but like a car thief who cannot find a police station, you cannot see that there is nothing said of praying to these beings, nor that they were some continuous postal service interceding for souls, but that they are offered in memorial before the judgments of the last days
"A rather straightforward deduction hat they heard the initial prayers? And just where is that? I did not deny they may have understood the nature of the prayers, but there is nothing in your proof texts that they heard them, while that is not the main issue, as that they were not prayed to is.
In Revelation 8:3-4 incense9s offered with the prayers, while in Rv. 5:8 the golden vials full of odours are the prayers of saints.
No doubt "it seems clear to" you as a Catholic who can only wish the texts say what you need them to, but the fact that angels are extremely intelligent beings (the issue is information, not IQ) who know when a sinner repents (which can be since their names are then written in the Lamb's book of life), and that John prophetically saw angels offering up prayers of the saints precipitating judgment - which is actually consistent with God remembering the cry of the humble when he maketh inquisition for blood, (Psalms 9:12) - simply does not mean they continuously know the express contents of believers prayers let alone are involved as constant intercessors. And it certainly does not teach that they were objects of prayer for believers.
The point is the angels and saints delivered the prayers to God. You can't explain how they got them in the first place.
That they continuously know the express contents of believers prayers is dubious, while arguing for this based upon what God can do is specious.
This is not likely referring to the view of those in Heaven, but the view of them by believers who were just presented with them in the previous chapter. "Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us." (Hebrews 12:1)[/quote]
This is the Greek word
martus, from which is derived the English word “martyr.”
1) Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Joseph H. Thayer, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 4th ed., 1977; orig. 1901, 392) defines it — as used in this verse — as follows:
“One who is a spectator of anything, e.g. of a contest, Heb 12:1.”
[Strong’s word #3144; similar usages cited by Thayer: Lk 24:48; Acts 1:8; 1:22; 2:32; 3:15; 5:32; 10:39; 13:31; 26:16; 1 Pet 5:1 – the sense is indisputable in these other verses]
2) Word Studies in the New Testament (Marvin R. Vincent, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1980; orig. 1887; vol. 4, 536), another standard Protestant language source, comments on this verse as follows:
‘Witnesses’ does not mean spectators, but those who have borne witness to the truth, as those enumerated in chapter 11. Yet the idea of spectators is implied, and is really the principal idea. The writer’s picture is that of an arena in which the Christians whom he addresses are contending in a race, while the vast host of the heroes of faith who, after having borne witness to the truth, have entered into their heavenly rest, watches the contest from the encircling tiers of the arena, compassing and overhanging it like a cloud, filled with lively interest and sympathy, and lending heavenly aid.
3) Word Pictures in the New Testament (A. T. Robertson [Baptist], Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, 1932, vol. 5, 432), comments:
‘Cloud of witnesses’ (nephos marturon . . . The metaphor refers to the great amphitheatre with the arena for the runners and the tiers upon tiers of seats rising up like a cloud. The martures here are not mere spectators (theatai), but testifiers (witnesses) who testify from their own experience (11:2,4-5, 33, 39) to God’s fulfilling promises as shown in chapter 11.
[Note that the notion of “spectators” is the primary metaphor — the arena — so that
both meanings: that of spectators and witnesses in the sense of
example are present. Neither can be ruled out]
4) Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, (ed. Gerhard Kittel & Gerhard Friedrich; tr. and abridged by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1985; 567), an impeccable and widely-used linguistic
(non-Catholic) source, states:
“In Heb. 12:1 the witnesses watching the race seem to be confessing witnesses (cf. 11:2), but this does not exclude the element of factual witness.”
So our
four non-Catholic language references all confirm that the element of “spectatorship,” which lends itself to the Catholic notion of communion of saints, where saints in heaven are aware of, and observe events on earth, is present in Hebrews 12:1, and
cannot be ruled out by any means, on the basis of a doctrinal bias.
Read more at
"Witnesses" of Hebrews 12:1 (Communion of Saints)
"Wherefore seeing" refers to the testimonies past believers that were just presented, the metaphorical "great cloud of witnesses" or martyrs (martus) of great witnesses to faith.
But again, even if they are viewing us this simply is not the same as them praying for us, much less being objects of prayer, which is nowhere seen. It is sad that Catholics must resort to such extrapolation.
Hebrews 12:1 tells us the saints in heaven are aware of, and observe events on earth. This is well established by 4 non-Catholic sources. One verse is not intended to give a comprehensive treatise on a doctrine that took centuries to develop, beginning with Judaism. Heb. 12:1 lends itself to the Catholic notion of communion of saints, nothing more. If your heaven is a retirement home for Christians to do nothing but play harps and float on clouds...well...good for you.
What? The extrapolation that Catholics must resort to is bad enough, but forcing Scripture to say what they can only wish it did is even worse. Martyrs asking God "How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth" is not praying for those on the earth, but is simply a question as to when God will execute justice. It may be that this judgment could be beneficial to the few protected believers that remain on earth, but judging and avenging the blood of those already martyred is the only manifest motive.
Those are imprecatory prayers, not prayers of intercession. But you are such an expert on prayer, I'm sure you know the difference.
Why do you even both with this? It only confirms what I said about only God being able to (constantly) hear prayer from Heaven and respond to it, and being the only one in Heaven believers pray to, versus two-way communication btwn created beings evidently requiring both to somehow be visibly in the same place, versus believers praying "hear Thou from Heaven"
All of which are pitiful substitutes for any real examples of any believers praying to anyone else in Heaven but the Lord, despite over 200 prayers in Scripture and despite there always being plenty of created being in Heaven to pray to, and despite prayer to created beings being a most basic common practice by Catholics.
Which simply does not translate into them doing so in Heaven, or having the uniquely Divine power to constantly hear prayers in Heaven, any more than mental prayers while on earth, much less being the objects of prayer.
Likewise as above.
More wanton propaganda invoked to support propaganda. Nowhere is this IM exception to the norm testifies to by God in Scripture, nor that the holy virtuous Spirit-filled Mary of Scripture had the most virtuous character (or exercised the most love), or was ever prayed to, and that her prayers in response to ours must have more power and effect than that of any other creature.
Speculation, which avails nothing unless they can be shown to be heavenly objects of prayer.
More wanton propaganda invoked to support propaganda.
You invoked this failure already.
Another attempt to invoke Genesis 48:16, taking it out of context,
Show me where I said this attempt was by any official Catholic document, or from someone you would call a reputable Catholic apologists, or stop making things up. But you can tell those Catholic apologists on this form who has taken these verses out of context that they are not reputable Catholic apologists.
Another and egregious example is that of using such as texts "Praise ye him, all his angels: praise ye him, all his hosts" (Psalms 148:2) to support praying to angels. However, this also ignores context for to be consistent, contextually the Catholic must also affirm praying to created elements is also encouraged:
This is sheer nonsense. Praying to created elements is just
another stupid anti-Catholic myth invented by bible cults trying to undermine the historic Church to justify their late arrival.
I don't like the term "created elements" and what that implies.
That I said praying to created elements is something Catholics do is just another example of misapprehension or wilful misrepresentation of what I said. Which was that to be consistent with using such texts as "Praise ye him, all his angels" to support praying to them, the must also affirm praying to created elements is also encouraged, as in "Praise ye him, sun and moon..."
It means God's creation gives Him glory by virtue of their existence. Your non sequiturs are getting worse.
Really? Then you have not debated Caths for years as i have, and i expect to see that recourse here.
You have not debated a reputable apologist, just amateurs that you can bully.
As well as simply asserting Catholic propaganda as if that provided the evidence they so desperately need.
Certainly some Truths were passed on orally, and SS preachers can do so today, under the premise that such are Scriptural, as that of men such as the apostles were. However, directly men such as the apostle could speak as wholly inspired of God, and also provide new revelation, neither of which a SS preacher or Roman popes claim to do.
It is impossible for any pope to teach new revelation that is not in the deposit of faith, unlike the so called reformers that invented SS that's nowhere in the Bible. You keep shifting time frames from the 1st to the 21st centuries.
Moreover, the veracity of Scripture is not shown subject to testing by oral tradition, but the veracity of even apostolic preaching was subject to testing by the inspired written word of God, which is God's chosen means of preservation, and as written, became the manifest standard for obedience and testing Truth claims.
That looks like Bible worship propaganda. How can apostolic preaching be tested against a canon that didn't exist for 4 centuries?
It is true that any proposed tradition which contradicts Apostolic Scripture is a false tradition and must be rejected, but this does not make Apostolic Tradition inferior to Scripture for that reason. It is also true that any proposed scripture which contradicts Apostolic Tradition is a false scripture and must be rejected.
This was, in fact, one of the ways in which the canon of the New Testament was selected. Any scriptures which contained doctrines which were contrary to the Traditions the apostles had handed down to the Church Fathers were rejected. Between the Gnostic gospels (like the Gospel of Thomas) or Marcion's edited version of Luke and Paul's epistles, there were a lot of heretical writings that different groups wanted to see in the New Testament. But the Fathers said, "No, this contradicts the faith that was handed down to us from the apostles. Thus it must be a forged writing."
So while tradition must be tested against Scripture to see if the tradition is apostolic, it is also true that scripture must be tested against Tradition to see if the scripture is apostolic. There is complementarity here, and one mode of teaching is not automatically inferior to the other.
INFO: The sources of theology
However, Rome effectively presumes to be the supreme authority (sola Roma), with assurance of Truth for a faithful RC resting upon the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults).
A non sequitur. You are re-defining infallibility. "sola Roma" is a joke.
For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
Again, you are re-defining infallibility. It is my opinion that SS's can't comprehend it.
Thus your attempted defense has been a manifest failure, for faced the Spirit of God not providing actual examples of PTCBIH while providing approx. 200 prayers, and yet recording that of such by pagans, and only instructing and exampling prayer to God in Heaven, you invoke the postscriptural history of Catholic accretion of traditions of men as if that was the inspired standard of what the NT church believed and practiced, but the Spirit of God failed to actually record it.
Actually, it's there, you just can't remove your Protestant welding goggles long enough to see it.
Then you posted a link which was supposed to show that PTCBIH is "absent from the entire body of inspired Scripture," yet utterly fails to show one actual example.
I posted several, you just don't like them.
Next you misrepresented what I said re prayers to saints and church teaching being the supreme law, then tried to make the noble Bereans into Pharisees who held the Deuterocanon to be Scripture, which cannot be established, while that we should follow Jewish tradition re PTCBIH when NT record does not show the church did is absurd.
Your denial of the Bereans being Greeks is absurd.
The Protestant patristics scholar J. N. D. Kelly writes: "It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive than the [Protestant Old Testament] . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocrypha or deuterocanonical books. The reason for this is that the Old Testament which passed in the first instance into the hands of Christians was . . . the Greek translation known as the Septuagint. . . . most of the Scriptural quotations found in the New Testament are based upon it rather than the Hebrew.. . . In the first two centuries . . . the Church seems to have accept all, or most of, these additional books as inspired and to have treated them without question as Scripture.[/quote]
A Protestant patristic scholar is a propagandist too?
James Akin
Next you egregiously tried to extrapolate extremely intelligent angels offering up prayers in Heaven as prophetically seen by John before the climatic judgments of Revelation as meaning they hear prayers and are now constantly involved as intercessors, and as if this somehow supports praying to them, which it simply does not.
I'm waiting for an explanation of how they got the prayers in the first place.
You also tried to negate the manner of division btwn the Heavenly and earthly realms which is manifest in any two-way communication btwn created beings evidently being required both to somehow be visibly in the same place, versus believers praying "hear Thou from Heaven," by showing example of what I said. Thanks.
Scroll up to the green text where your man made "Berlin Wall" between heaven and earth is exposed as a false tradition, and contrary to the Scriptures provided.
Then you listed your entire rationale for asking saints to pray to God for us, all of which is more wanton extrapolation in lieu of any examples amidst over 200 prayers be believers, or any instruction to address some created beings in prayer to Heaven, and what is needed but you can only wish was there.
The prayers of Jesus and Peter to raise the dead don't count as prayers to you, but they do to me.
We are not dealing with whether pets will be in Heaven, or the existence of a hidden planet, but a most basic common spiritual practice and a God which is faithful to manifestly show such in His inspired writings. The desperate, even inventive extrapolation Catholics must resort to in seeking to provide support for what really is a tradition of men is itself an argument against it.
Since you reject all my proof texts I suppose appealing to the Early Church Fathers is pointless, since you have nothing to do with them.
Next you argue as if presented a Catholic apologetic as being from an official Catholic document, or from "a reputable Catholic apologist," while in reality Catholic apologists do present the argument i cited, and do take it out of context.
Then site an apologist. There are no professional apologists in this forum, just hobbyists. If a real Catholic apologist takes you out of context, then prove it. It's all on line. You have no publicized debates, just forum noise.
Then you argue as if I said that praying to created elements is a Cath practice, when instead i was showing the consequences of their logic.
Angels and saints are not elements. Most likely your "logic" is another non sequitur. Many Calvinists claim miracles (in any Christian context) are caused by satan, is that your position?
Finally, as you are simply unable from inspired Scripture to show that PTCBIH was something the NT church believed and practiced, then it is no surprise that in the end you invoke Catholic oral tradition, that carte blanch means of providing what Scripture will not.
Oral tradition is what discerned authentic Scripture from fake scripture. The conflict between oral Tradition and Scripture is a man made tradition stemming from the man made tradition of SS.
Tradition, (perpetually redefined by Protestants),
Scripture and the
Magisterium (that you have redefined) is the biblical rule of faith. All are in harmony and one is not over the other, contrary to the myths of anti-Catholics.
Which even extends into Rome making belief in an event binding over 1700 years after it allegedly occurred, and which was so
lacking in testimony from tradition that Roman scholars were collectively opposed to it being apostolic doctrine.
Sheer nonsense.
But the premise of Rome is not that or the apostles, and simply reveals the false foundation of Rome in teaching for doctrines the traditions of men.
More sheer nonsense.
Catacomb of St. Sebastiano with chards of prayers to saints
From as early as the second century (between 100 AD- 200 AD) to the fourth century the evidence from the catacombs make an overwhelming argument that
such a practice stemmed from ancient Judaism and passed down by Peter and Paul, the prayers were very similar as in the Scriptures.
The Most Powerful Evidence To Prove That Prayers To Saints Is Part Of Christianity
https://heroicvirtuecreations.com/2009/07/24/response-to-james-white-on-the-communion-of-saints/
StayCatholic.com - ECF Intercession
(but you have nothing to do with THAT church.)
Dave Armstrong Debates James White (1995) : Is Catholicism Christian?